Application – Agenda Item 3 Regulatory Committee 8 August 2017, Page 76

Representation on INS/08 and WCC’s Statement on Secondary Education Needs and Infrastructure (OTH38)

Key Quotations

“ …the Plan [ie the Core Strategy] makes little provision for land for education development and has not, in this respect, kept pace with the rate of increase in demand for pupil places in the town”

Ian Grace BA Dip TP MRTPI, Principal Planner Warwickshire County Council, Rokeby School Application – Agenda item 3 Regulatory Committee 8 August 2017, page 76

“ … in order to safeguard provision for the identified unmet need a modification is proposed to policy DS7. This will reserve land for a secondary school on the Coton Park East site … the reserve land should be for 8.5Ha”

Warwickshire County Council, 7 March 2018, Statement on Secondary Education Needs and Infrastructure, paragraph 6.10, page 5

Key diagram

A. Introduction and Summary

1 This representation notes Mr Hayden (the Inspector)’s request for information both on the cumulative need for secondary school places in Rugby and the requirements for secondary school facilities (INS08) and also analyses WCC’s response to that request (OTH38).

2 The Inspector required the statement on secondary education “… to be prepared and submitted by Rugby Borough Council (RBC) with assistance from Warwickshire county Council…” (INS08, page 2). RBC has not met this requirement. OTH38 has not been prepared by RBC. It is not known to what extent, if at all, RBC accept WCC’s analysis that DS7 is unsound and requires a major modification. The extent to which RBC have allowed for secondary education needs in their Publication Draft is analysed in section C below.

3 WCC’s projections of the cumulative need for secondary school places in Rugby, see chart 1 below, are unconvincing.

WCC forecast that the need for secondary school places in the borough will rise continuously to September 2026 and then, despite continued housing growth, will fall. The drop in forecast need is particularly marked in September 2030. The pupils who will arrive in secondary school in September 2030 have not yet been born and is challenging to see how WCC could have forecast a reverse in trend and a decline in this cohort. These are not the only problems with WCC’s forecast. In particular by not using RBC’s latest forecast of dwelling completions WCC appear to have under-forecast total pupil numbers by 335 pupils. The forecast is analysed in section D below.

4 WCC are forecasting that need will first exceed capacity in 2018-19 and then continue to exceed capacity throughout the plan period – see chart 2 below:

This chart is taken from table 3 on page 3 of OTH38.

WCC’s capacity projections are analysed in section I.

5 The greatest pressure is currently in the North of Rugby and RBC are forecasting that a further 1,980 houses will be built in the North of Rugby before WCC start to relieve the pressure with the construction of a new school on the Rugby Radio Masts site. Pressure will then transfer to the South of Rugby where RBC are forecasting that 3,454 houses will be built before WCC’s date for opening a new school in South West Rugby. The evidence for these pressure points is explored in section E.

6 WCC have recently submitted planning applications to expand the capacity of Rugby Free Secondary School (currently with a capacity of 360 pupils). These would allow that school to continue to admit pupils at the current rate. Beyond Rugby Free Secondary School the county council propose that a new school should be opened on the Rugby Radio Masts site in September 2022 and on their South West Rugby site in September 2025. It is probable that the county council is not currently planning sufficient capacity in SW Rugby. This is explored in section F.

7 WCC have suggested that additional capacity might be made available on current school sites. This is not a new suggestion and WCC have not previously acted on proposals to increase the capacity of existing schools. The likelihood of additional capacity being made available on existing sites is explored in section G.

8 The county council’s current policy is for a fourth new school for Rugby in the North of the town. Their failure to bring forward this proposal in OTH38 is explored in section H.

9 The county council’s recommendation that DS7 be modified to set aside 8.5ha of land in Coton Park East for a new secondary school is endorsed in section J.

B National Government Planning Policy on Schools and Educational Provision

10 The current National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) only explicitly mentions schools and education in five places (see below). The first mention refers to the process of preparing local plans, the second, third and fourth mentions refer to the content of local plans and the fifth mention is a development control measure. The five mentions are:

(i) NPPF paragraph 162 makes it clear that education is a component of infrastructure and that when preparing local plans local authorities should work with other authorities and providers to assess its quality and capacity;

(ii) NPPF paragraph 37 requires planning policies to aim for “a balance of land uses within their area so that people can be encouraged to minimise journey lengths for … education …”;

(iii) NPPF paragraph 72 refers to the provision of choice in school places. The paragraph is somewhat clumsily worded as it starts by describing the government’s preference, it “attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities” and then proceeds in the second sentence to mislabel its strong preference as a requirement which local planning authorities should take a “proactive, positive and collaborative” approach to meet. (The 2017 Supreme Court decision4 distinguishes between the law, which is a requirement, and government policy which local authorities must have due regard for);

(iv) NPPF paragraph 38 states that for large-scale developments “key facilities such as primary schools … should be located within walking distance of most properties” [a goal sadly not achieved for residents of the Rugby Gateway Sustainable Urban Extension – see plate 1].

(v) Finally NPPF paragraph 45 refers to the siting of telecommunications infrastructure.

11 The policy expressed in NPPF 37 that education facilities should be sited so that people can be encouraged to minimise journey lengths for education is given indirect support by several other paragraphs in the National Planning Policy Framework for example: paragraph 30 concerning supporting solutions which reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion with a pattern of development which “facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport”; paragraph 34 on ensuring “developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised”; paragraph 35 concerning giving “priority to pedestrian and cycle movements” and paragraph 95 concerning planning for new developments “in

locations which reduce greenhouse gas emissions”. That the policy expressed in NPPF paragraph 37 is likely to be enduring is evidenced by the inclusion of very similar wording in paragraph 105 of the Draft National Planning Policy Framework (2018).

12 That the guidance concerning choice is likely to be an enduring feature of government policy is evidenced by the inclusion of very similar working in paragraph 95 of the Draft National Planning Policy Framework (2018). Similarly the requirement to consider education when preparing local plans is again referred to in paragraph 20 of the Draft National Planning Policy Framework (2018).

13 The policy wishes of government are clear. The provision of schools should be considered by local authorities when drawing up local plans; schools should be sited to minimise journey lengths and promote sustainable transport and sufficient provision of education should be made to ensure choice.

14 The implications of the choice agenda are not fully spelt out in government policy. The implications of a school choice policy are briefly explored in appendix 1. The mathematics of school choice are complex but as a broad generalisation where there is a shortage of places it is not parents who choose schools but rather school governors who choose pupils. An effective school choice policy requires a surplus of school places. Warwickshire County Council have adopted a policy that there should be a 4% surplus of places relative to need (See appendix 3 – WCC18). This policy is not to provide choice but rather to promote other objectives but would, if implemented, support the government’s choice agenda. [There appears to be some confusion about this policy within WCC for whilst the report recommending the policy does not refer to parental choice in the context of the 4% surplus a member of the WCC Cabinet does – see OOP17 in appendix 3].

C Rugby Borough Council and school provision planning

15 It has already been demonstrated that RBC fail to consider secondary school provision in the development control process – see hearing statement Matter 3b CP 1549 (page 4).

16 NPPF paragraph 162 (see above) sets out the government’s expectations that local authorities will consider education as part of the process of developing local plans. Of the eight components of infrastructure identified by the government RBC only published two assessment (transport & flood risk) for the consultation on its Publication Draft. Later it also published an assessment of water supply and wastewater but only after it had closed its consultation.

17 Until March 2018 RBC had not published any assessment of the education infrastructure in its area. The assessment published on 7 March 2018 was done at the request of the Inspector and was compiled by the county council and not, as required by the Inspector, by the borough council.

18 However whilst RBC has not adopted the “proactive” approach recommended by the government its citizens have not been similarly inactive. Many local residents commented on the lack of capacity for secondary education in the North of the Town in their responses to the Publication Draft. As noted in hearing statement

Matter 1b 1549, paragraph 24, page 4 the only “analysis” of the Publication Draft consultation which was available to councillors before they voted to submit the local plan is not in the Examination Library. However the relevant extract is provided in appendix 3. Concerns regarding the shortage of secondary school provision in the Coton Park area were noted in this report but no response was made regarding these concerns. The approach taken by RBC in drawing up its local plan with regard to concerns about school place shortages mirrors the approach taken in development control. The concerns raised are noted but otherwise ignored.

19 After the Council had voted to submit the Publication Draft RBC set about writing a response to all the points raised during consultation and the results are displayed in LP53. My analysis of some of the education responses is given in hearing statement 3b CP 1549 paragraph 14, page 5. RBC describe my own comment on this matter as an “additional representation” (LP53 – Addendum), in fact my comments were submitted during the first consultation period. Their response to my comments, were not published until January 2018 (fifteen months after they had been made) which strongly suggests they were not taken into account when RBC voted to submit its Publication Draft.

20 As noted in the hearing statement quoted above one of RBC’s standard responses to residents who said that insufficient provision had been made for education in the plan was to say “Discussions are at an advanced stage between the Borough Council, County Council Education department, the Education Funding Agency (EFA) and landowners/site promoters to identify a site to the north of Rugby that the development of Coton Park East will contribute to”. The discussions, which were at “an advanced stage” in December 2017, are not mentioned in OTH38 (published four months later in March 2018).

21 RBC neither properly considered the educational needs of its borough before producing a Publication Draft nor took these needs into account after receiving responses to its consultation.

D Warwickshire County Council’s Forecasts

22 On day 1 of Stage 1 of the hearings the Council for the Preservation of Rural England’s Merle Gering gave evidence that there was a duty which extended to all (laypeople and experts alike) to examine data for sore thumbs. Data which stood out like a sore thumb, in his case population forecasts for Coventry, should be closely examined. Explanations of exceptional data should be provided before they could be accepted. WCC’s secondary school need data is presented below in Chart 1.

The source of this data is OTH38, table 2, page 3.

23 The “sore thumb” which immediately presents in this data is the projected decline in Rugby’s secondary school population from a peak of 8,348 in September 2026 to a value of 8,139 in September 2030, at a time when in each and every year RBC are forecasting a significant number of house completions in the borough. WCC say there will be 173 fewer pupils in the secondary school system in September 2030 than there will be in September 2029. The first of the children joining secondary school in September 2030 will not be born until this August. The county council appear to be claiming a startling insight into a change in human sexual behaviour in Rugby which has taken place over the last few months. However WCC provide no account of this change in OTH38. Without an explanation of the “sore thumb” in the figures WCC’s projections should be rejected.

24 I have identified five other projections of Rugby’s secondary school population, in the tabulated form required by the Inspector, that have been made by WCC over the last three and a half years. In addition I have identified five other “spot” projections of secondary school populations in Rugby made by WCC in the last two years. None of these other projections is consistent with OTH38.

25 Chart 3 below shows all six of WCC’s projections of Rugby’s secondary school population which have been made in the tabulated form required by the Inspector in the last three and a half years.

The only forecast to show a decline in a future projection of need is OTH38. All the other five projections are a monotonic increasing function of time. The derivation of chart 3 is provided in appendix 2.

26 In addition to OTH38 I have identified five other spot projections by WCC which relate secondary school places to new dwellings. These are listed in table 1 below:

Table 1 - Secondary School Place Need and Number of New Dwellings

Source Date Area School New Places per Places Dwellings th dwellings

OOP07 Feb-16 Borough 2,132 8,605 248 OOP11 Aug-16 Borough 3,801 15,495 245 OOP17 May-17 North 700 2,500 280 OOP20/OTH10 Jan-18 Lodge Farm 310 1,465 212 OOP21/OTH18 Jan-18 SW Rugby 900 5,000 180 OOP23/OTH38 Mar-18 Borough 2,485 10,460 238

An index to the sources is provided in the chronology and appendix 3. A fuller derivation of these figures is provided in appendix 2. Between February 2016 and March 2018 WCC’s forecast of the number of extra secondary school places generated by an extra one thousand houses has varied from a high of 280 pupils to a low of 180 pupils. It is of note that the lowest figure, which comes from the county council’s agreement of the educational space to be provided by developers in SW Rugby, is for a site where WCC is itself a developer. The OTH38 figure is lower than the figures provided when WCC was advising RBC how many additional school pupils should be allowed for in the new Rugby Local Plan.

27 A description of the manner in which WCC say they have produced the forecast is provided in paragraphs 1.3 and 3.1 to 3.4 of OTH38. The key points are as follows:

• Pupil intake is spread evenly across the year groups (paragraph 1.3); • A 5% buffer is built into the assumptions (paragraph 1.3); • The Rugby Borough Council pupil yield calculator has been used (paragraph 3.1); • All houses will have three bedrooms (paragraph 3.2); • Thirty per cent of all housing will be affordable and the remainder market (paragraph 3.3); • The data source for new housing projections is LP01, appendix 2 (paragraph 3.3); • The pupil forecast figures include [the] projected impact of the Local Plan housing growth plus the number of pupils already in the system (paragraph 3.4)

The assumption that all houses will be three bedroomed is likely to lead to an under- forecast of pupil numbers given the significant number of four bedroomed houses included in typical Rugby planning applications eg the latest Taylor-Wimpey development on the Rugby Gateway (Planning application R15/2329) has the following distribution of bedroom types:

• 4-bedrooms (52); • 3-bedrooms (59); and • 2-bedrooms (21).

However under-forecasting due to under-estimating average house size may be offset by the 5% forecasting buffer and the assumption that Rugby will achieve the needed level of affordable housing. Far more significant is WCC’s choice of housing projections (LP01, appendix 2). This is not the latest housing trajectory produced by RBC. The latest forecast is contained in LP54. Rather than forecasting that 10,460 dwellings would be completed in the last thirteen years of the Local Plan RBC are now forecasting 12,196 completions. The number of additional secondary school pupils yielded by the additional 1,736 houses now forecast by RBC (and using WCC’s approach) is shown in table 2 below.

Table 2 - Additional pupils if RBC's latest housing trajectory is a reliable forecast

Dwellings Pupil factor Years Pupils

Market 3-bed houses 1,215 0.0348 5 211 Affordable 3-bed houses 521 0.0412 5 107

5% buffer 16

TOTAL 1,736 335

28 By applying WCC’s methodology to RBC’s latest housing projections we would expect Rugby’s Secondary Schools to have 335 more pupils in them by 2030 than WCC’s OTH38 projection. That is 67 pupils per year group, slightly more than two forms of entry.

E The Greatest Pressure Points

29 As early as 2009 WCC recognised that the Rugby Radio Masts site would require a new secondary school by 2014 and the expansion of an existing secondary school would be required to support development on the Rugby Gateway (Appendix 3, OOP02). By 2010 the county council were requesting a 12.5ha site to support a secondary school with 1,800 pupils on the Rugby Radio Masts site and had identified Avon Valley School as the school which should be expanded to accommodate growth from the Rugby Gateway (Appendix 3, OOP03).

30 WCC took no action to meet either of these requirements and in November 2014 concluded that Avon Valley School would be over-subscribed in 2015 (Appendix 3, WCC09). The policy adopted in April 2016 forecast that Avon Valley School would be over-subscribed in all years with the deficit of places rising to 46% in September 2020 (Appendix 3, WCC09). By June 2016 WCC’s Cabinet member for Education, Cllr Hayfield, agreed that a new school was needed in the North but stated that WCC was not prepared to ask RBC to set aside a site for it in the new Local Plan (Appendix 3, OOP10). In August of that year the school planning evidence WCC submitted to RBC confirmed that “the need is going to be predominantly in the North of the Town” (Appendix 3, OOP11).

31 On 14 March 2017 WCC’s schools planning manager confirmed that it was the county council’s intention that Avon Valley School would “service Mast Site pupils before the self-serving Mast Site All-Through School opens in September 2022. By this point in time around 1,000 homes will have been built on site which will temporarily further increase the pressure”. In May 2017 a councillor on WCC’s Cabinet wrote to the Chair of SHARE saying “… the North Rugby planning area will come under increasing pressure as a result of the ongoing developments at the Gateway, Coton Park, Coton House and Leicester Road sites…” consequently “a new school is required in Rugby, with the preferred location in the North …” (Appendix 3, OOP17).

32 Figures provided with WCC’s current education policy confirm that Avon Valley School will be over-subscribed in all years and that “the Department for Education (DfE) has recently approved an application for Ashlawn School to open a Free School in Rugby in September 2019. The location of this school has yet to be confirmed but WCC are working with the DfE and the Trust and Rugby Borough Council to locate a site in the North of Rugby” (Appendix 3, WCC18).

33 A new proposed education policy for Warwickshire has been drafted and was proposed to the February 2018 meeting of the county council’s cabinet but on the day of the meeting it was decided not to consider that paper. Figures provided with

that paper confirmed that Avon Valley School continued to be over-subscribed and the proposed policy said “… Current and proposed development for the North of the town has seen and will continue to see the demand for school places in the local area rise but the supply of secondary school places within a 3 mile walking distance of this demand cannot currently be increased. The opening of the newly approved Free School sponsored by Ashlawn School on a site in the North of town would alleviate this pressure” (Appendix 3, OOP19).

34 So with the exception of OOP12 when WCC said the greatest need was in the Ashlawn School priority area and OOP13 when WCC said the greatest need was “Rugby wide” the county council have consistently said that the greatest need is in the North of Town.

35 During the consultation on the Publication Draft I submitted a representation including this map of the catchment area operated by Avon Valley School.

Map 1 – Catchment area operated by Avon Valley School for September 2016 admissions.

In the 2016 admission round Avon Valley School only took pupils from their Priority Area and within their priority area they operated a catchment area which excluded part of Coton Park [including all of the DS7 policy area], Coton House and the village of Clifton. The Rugby Radio Masts site lies to the East of this map and thus it will not be possible for it to “service” that site (see paragraph 31 above).

36 An analysis of RBC’s latest housing trajectory, see appendix 4, shows that before the Rugby Radio Masts school is due to open a further 1,980 dwellings are due to be completed in the Avon Valley School priority area. More dwellings are planned to be completed in this school priority area than in any other priority area in Rugby.

37 The greatest pressure on school spaces in the immediate future will be in the Avon Valley school priority area (ie the North of Rugby).

38 When, or in the words of WCC’s representative on day 6 of stage 1 of the examination in public, “if”, a new secondary school is opened on the Rugby Radio

Masts site the pressure will switch to the South of Rugby planning area. WCC say that in this planning area demand will exceed capacity in September 2020 (Appendix 3, OOP17). Between the South running out of capacity in September 2020 and the planned date for the opening of the new SW Rugby secondary school RBC say that 2,533 dwellings will be completed in the South of Rugby school planning area.

34 This has particular consequences for Lodge Farm. In their hearing statement (3b LF 1862) St Modwen Properties state that “If the South West Rugby Secondary School is completed after the first phases of housing development at Lodge Farm, secondary school children living at Lodge Farm will be transported by bus to existing secondary schools within Rugby at Ashlawn School, Rugby High (Girls Grammar) and the new Rugby Free Secondary School, all of which are about 5 miles (8km) from Lodge Farm which is an acceptable distance for secondary school children”. If both OTH38 and LP54 are reliable forecasts then the first phases of housing development at Lodge Farm will be completed before the South West Rugby Secondary School. Female pupils who do well enough in the 11+ may well be admitted to Rugby High but less academically able girls and all of the boys will not benefit from St Modwen’s proposed bus service. For the September 2018 admission round Ashlawn School operated a catchment area of just 0.763 miles. For September 2018 Rugby Free Secondary School operated a catchment area of 7.364 miles so in that year pupils from Lodge Farm would have been admitted but before the first house is scheduled to be built in Lodge Farm a further 2,076 dwellings are due to be completed in the South of Rugby school planning area. This will inevitably result in a reduction in Rugby Free Secondary School’s catchment area resulting in the exclusion of potential pupils from Lodge Farm. Without a secondary school on site Lodge Farm is not a sustainable development. A secondary school cannot be provided on site because the Lodge Farm development is too small to support a secondary school. Therefore Lodge Farm is not sustainable.

F The amount of land set aside for Secondary Education in SW Rugby

35 In OTH18 WCC (the property developers) agree with WCC (the local education authority) an allocation of land for a combined primary/secondary school for SW Rugby. This states “The preferred option for Secondary school provision is a 6fe Secondary School with 250 sixth form places on a site (8.12ha) located to the south of the South West Rugby allocation, towards the south of Cawston Lane. Further co- located land (an additional 2.2ha, total secondary school site area 10.34ha) is to be provided to accommodate a 2fe expansion of the Secondary School plus a further 50 sixth form places to cater for the proposed allocation at Lodge Farm forming a total site area for the All-through school of 13ha” (pages 1 & 2).

36 This approach is confirmed by OTH38 which states “The SOCG (OTH18) details the provision of the secondary school at SW Rugby of 13Ha of land for an all through school to meet the education needs of both SW Rugby and Lodge Farm. We would envisage the secondary element expanding to 8FE to meet the eventual growth from SW Rugby and Lodge Farm”.

37 However OTH18 and OTH38 are at odds with WCC’s earlier advice to RBC. In August 2016 WCC said that SW Rugby would generate 8 to 9 forms of entry and Lodge Farm 2 to 3 forms of entry giving a total school requirement of 10 to 12 forms of entry

(Appendix 3, OOP11). Nor are SW Rugby and Lodge Farm the only developments in the South of Rugby that will create pressure on secondary education places. Already granted planning permission for dwellings due to be completed after the South of Rugby reaches capacity are Cawston - Linden Homes and Dipbar Fields (182 dwellings) and if the Publication Draft were to be approved we have the relevant main rural settlements (Stretton, Ryton, Binley Woods, Wolston and Long Lawford) who together account for a further 327 dwellings. In addition some of the 495 windfalls due to be completed post 2020 are highly likely to be in the South of Rugby School planning area.

39 It has already been demonstrated that the ratio of secondary school places to new dwellings used in the OTH18 allocation at just 180 secondary school pupils per 1,000 dwellings is the lowest of all recent WCC spot calculations – see paragraph 26 above. If WCC have under-estimated the size of the secondary school required then the consequence for any Lodge Farm development would be grave.

Map 2 – a 2.5 mile catchment area for a new SW Rugby Secondary School

If the catchment area for a new SW Rugby Secondary School were to fall to 2.5 miles or less then no pupil from Lodge Farm would be admitted.

G Is there a temporary fix for this problem?

40 In OTH38 WCC state that “It is likely that the additional 3 Forms of Entry will be required across the town prior to the delivery of a new school at Houlton [Rugby Radio Masts] to cover the additional school places … Rugby High School and Lawrence Sheriff School are not considered for expansion in this statement due to the selective nature of entry at these schools. However, all of the other non selective school sites could support expansion of provision to a greater or lesser extent. In particular Bilton School has a site area with the potential to accommodate all of the unmet need arising …”.

41 Four things need to be said about this statement. First the statement does not reflect current WCC policy for the provision of secondary education in Rugby. Secondly the possibility of expanding Bilton School has been mooted before and then abandoned by the county council. Thirdly the county council has consistently advised that a policy of expanding existing provision is not feasible. Fourthly even if the county council were able to implement this policy it would not be a sustainable solution to Rugby’s problems.

42 The county council’s current policy for the education provision in Rugby (which was adopted in June 2017) makes no mention of expansion of existing school sites. Rather it states that “The opening of both Rugby Free Secondary School and the newly approved Free School which Ashlawn School will sponsor will ensure the forecast shortfall of secondary school places is met across the Borough” (Appendix 3, WCC18).

43 On 5 January 2016 WCC’s Janet Neale e-mailed RBC to inform them that Bilton School could take additional pupils “Colleagues from Education and Learning have confirmed to me that the secondary contribution and the sixth form contributions [from a proposed development in the eastern arm of SW Rugby] will be utilised at Bilton School. Ashlawn School is closer to the site and is currently the priority area school. However, Ashlawn has already expanded and there is limited space for the school to expand further. Warwickshire County Council believes that this proposed development will require the provision of additional school places and that Bilton School is the most appropriate place for these places to be provided”.

44 However in May 2017 this approach was rejected with Cllr Kaur writing “The possibility of expanding the current secondary schools is compounded by the urban nature of the existing schools, as largely they do not have the room to expand without compromising on other aspects of the school site. With regard to the email from Janet Neale, she does not state the school could or should expand. The email states that the Bilton School could accommodate some children as it currently has space in its upper cohorts [the e-mail did not say this]. To infer from this that the school is being considered for expansion is incorrect. The only available option therefore is for additional schools in Rugby to accommodate increasing need [my emphasis]” (Appendix 3, OOP17).

45 When the Secretary of State granted planning permission for the development which was the subject of Janet Neale’s e-mail this triggered a section 106 agreement which did not provide for the expansion of Bilton School but rather section 2.5.2 of the agreement states “The Secondary Education Contribution and the Sixth Form Contribution will be used to deliver phase one of a new secondary school for South West Rugby”.

46 In 2010 WCC’s policy was to expand Avon Valley School to meet some of the pressure in the North of Rugby (OOP03). However this policy was not implemented. As shown below WCC believe the legal environment makes it more difficult to implement this policy now than it was in 2010.

47 In April 2017 WCC wrote to one of Rugby’s MPs to say “There is limited opportunity to expand existing school [sic] to address the long term need” (Appendix 3, OOP16).

48 In May 2017 WCC wrote to the Chair of SHARE to say “The Avon Valley School is currently in the process of converting to an academy and as such Warwickshire County Council has no authority to force the school to expand its provision. This situation is similar to other schools in Rugby which are either Grammar Schools or part of an Academy Trust. Furthermore, the current school site is unviable for any meaningful expansion …” and “The complexities of this expansion are made all the more difficult as all the schools are Academies and, as mentioned in relation to The Avon Valley School, Warwickshire County Council has no authority to force an academy school to expand. It was suggested that Ashlawn was asked to expand on the existing site by increasing their PAN, as they already take near to two forms of entry over their published PAN from upheld appeals. They refused” (Appendix 3, OOP17).

49 A further problem with expanding Bilton School is that it was placed in special measures in 2016. Ofsted grades do change over time and it is to be expected that the current rating of the provision at Bilton School will improve (it has since merged with a high performing school in Southam). However the Department for Education’s guidance on this matter is clear “The department expects that only academies that are rated as ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ will seek to expand their premises, in order to increase their intake …”1 .

50 Assuming that all these problems can be overcome what would be the consequences of pursuing the approach advocated by WCC on day 6 of the first stage hearings. What would happen if first Bilton School were to be expanded for the 2019 admissions and then in three or four years time Avon Valley School were to be expanded. Bilton School is in the South of Rugby school planning area and close to the western edge of Rugby town. The only safe routes to Bilton School are from the Cawston Estate itself – see appendix 5. During this period the greatest pressure comes from the North of Rugby and developments on the Rugby Gateway and Rugby Radio Station ‘sustainable urban expansion’ in particular. Servicing the Rugby Gateway from Bilton School will add to existing pressures on the Leicester Road/A426. Servicing the Rugby Radio Station from Bilton will mean a journey across town. A good cycle route would take pupils from the new development to the Clifton Road/Butlers Leap junction but abandons them there without a safe way of completing their journey to school (see appendix 5). Motor vehicles taking pupils to school who arrive at the Clifton Road/Butlers Leap junction then have the choice of continuing to Bilton School via the congested, air-quality limit breaching Rugby Gyratory or a longer journey along Butlers Leap to the A426 and the problematic Avon Mill roundabout before they can reach the ‘Western Relief Road’ and complete their journey to school. Either option is likely to lead to increased traffic congestion. By the time Avon Valley School could be expanded the source of pressure will have switched from the North of Rugby to the South of Rugby. The areas most likely to be locked out of the South of Rugby schools by the operation of catchment areas are Lodge Farm and the villages to the West of Rugby. There are no safe routes to school from these locations. Motor vehicles travelling from Lodge Farm to Avon Valley School would have the choice of travelling through the centre of Rugby and the Rugby Gyratory or making a long loop to the West of Rugby to pick up the ‘Western Relief Road’.

51 Even if the problems associated with expanding Bilton School and Avon Valley School such as site constrains, the legal nature of the schools operating there and government policy on expanding ‘failing’ and ‘coasting’ schools could be overcome the solution would not be sustainable and not compliant with NPPF paragraph 37.

H The county council’s policy for education provision in Rugby is to promote a fourth new school in the North of Rugby

48 Rather than expand existing schools the county council’s current policy is to promote a fourth new school in the North of Rugby. OTH38 only mentions three new schools in Rugby – the Rugby Free Secondary School (a reserved matters planning application was submitted by the county council at the end of February); a new secondary school on the Rugby Radio Masts site and a new secondary school in South West Rugby. However the county council’s current policy is also to promote a fourth new secondary school.

49 The county council’s current education provision policy was adopted in June 2017 and states:

“… the Department for Education (DfE) has recently approved an application for Ashlawn School to open a Free School in Rugby in September 2019. The location of this school has yet to be confirmed but WCC are working with the DfE and the Trust and Rugby Borough Council to locate a site in the North of Rugby”

(Appendix 3, WCC18).

50 This is confirmed in numerous other WCC documents. In August 2016 WCC wrote to RBC saying:

“In addition to the secondary provision being made on the Radio Mast Site … and that that would be provided as part of South West Rugby … it is estimated the remaining new allocations would still create the need to provide new secondary school provision for at least an additional 5 forms of entry … the need is going to be predominantly in the North of the Town”

(Appendix 3, OOP11)

In March 2017 WCC’s school planning manager wrote:

“Therefore the opening of a new school in the North of Rugby in continuation with the phased opening of the Rugby Free Secondary School would allow pupils from the Avon Valley priority area to move back into the North of Town”

In April 2017 WCC wrote:

“Warwickshire County Council has identified the need for a new secondary school from September 2019 and is currently working with the Education Funding Agency (EFA) to locate a site for this school, with the preferred location being in the North of Rugby”.

(Appendix 3, OOP16)

In May 2017 WCC wrote:

“… This is therefore why Warwickshire County Council is working towards four new schools in Rugby (including Rugby Free Secondary School), as there is a genuine need for all four schools …”

(Appendix 3, OOP17)

… and as recently as February 2018 WCC published a report for its Cabinet which said:

“… In order to meet the forecast demand for secondary school places as a result of existing and permitted developments in Rugby both Rugby Free Secondary School and the newly approved Free School sponsored by Ashlawn School will be required to secure sufficient secondary provision. In response to approved and proposed developments outlined in the draft local plan a further two secondary schools will be required. These two schools will be provided as part of the Houlton [Rugby Radio Masts and South West Rugby housing developments respectively …”

(Appendix 3, OOP19)

51 OTH38’s omission of thes well attested policy to open a new secondary school in the North of Rugby is surprising.

52 WCC stated what the impact would be of a failure to provide for this new secondary school in their August 2016 submission to RBC on the draft Local Plan:

“… Failure to provide additional school places in the North of Rugby will leave a gap in pupil place sufficiency, impact on the promotion of sustainable travel and places further pressure on the school transport/transport infrastructure and budget …” [my emphasis]

(Appendix 3, OOP11)

Here WCC’s reasoning cannot be faulted.

I The county council’s projections of capacity

53 WCC are projecting a shortage of capacity throughout the plan period.

This chart is taken from table 3 on page 3 of OTH38.

Their figures allow for:

(a) The unexplained downturn in the birth rate starting this August; (b) All the capacity of the Rugby Radio Masts and SW Rugby Schools being available as soon as they open; and (c) Out-dated figures for dwelling completions.

They do not allow for WCC’s policy of providing 4% excess capacity. The provision of excess capacity is required to meet NPPF paragraph 72 (see appendix 1).

54 WCC have not explained why they expect the birth rate to fall this August. If they are wrong then their figures are likely to under-estimate need.

55 It is interesting to compare WCC’s approach to the capacity that may be generated by Rugby Free Secondary School and the capacity they are ascribing to the Rugby Radio Masts and SW Rugby Secondary School. With respect to the former school they anticipate that the school adds capacity one school year at a time. With respect to the last two schools they have taken a different approach and have assumed that all of the school’s physical capacity can be deployed to meet need on completion. It is challenging to see how “100% efficient” use could be achieved. Clearly when the Rugby Radio Masts school is opened it could take, say, 8 forms of entry rather than the 6

forms of entry it is to be designed for – although previously WCC have argued that this approach is undesirable – see “The two secondary schools identified in the local plan for Houlton development and the Rugby South West expansion cannot be considered as part of this solution for the existing need in Rugby as both schools will be sized accordingly to be self-serving, in that they will only be able to accommodate pupils from their respective developments. To request one of the schools be brought forward to take children not from the priority area is an unsustainable model. To do so would compromise children from Houlton securing places within the school once a sufficient number of homes have been built” (Appendix 3, OOP17). However taking eight rather than six forms of entry would merely make use of 27% of the school’s capacity and not the 100% of the school’s capacity which WCC claim in their table 3. Other approaches are possible – for example opening more than one year at once – however such entry points are likely to only be taken up by families newly arriving in the school’s area. This would not initially fill the school and give the school problems with setting by ability in years 7, 8 and 9 (not enough forms) and GCSE choices in years 10 and 11 (too few pupils to provide much choice). The 100% capacity model is very much a best case and is unlikely to be realised in practice.

56 Chart 4 below shows WCC’s projections of need revised to take account of RBC’s latest housing trajectory. It also shows the effect of allowing for WCC’s 4% policy buffer and for school capacity only growing a year at a time instead of assuming the entire physical capacity of a school is actually available in the year the school opens.

This suggests that the school capacity situation is more serious than WCC’s figures in OTH38. In September 2025 there is a 1,406 pupil gap between the revised calculation of need with an addition of the 4% WCC policy buffer and the planned capacity of the school system if capacity is only added one year at a time. Details of the calculations behind chart 4 are shown in appendix 6.

J An allocation for secondary education in Coton Park East

57 RBC have allocated Coton Park East for development in their Publication Draft and unlike the other proposed sustainable urban extensions, SW Rugby and Lodge Farm this proposal has not generated a significant level of objection.

58 The principle that some of the land in Coton Park East is suitable for education is accepted by both RBC and the developers. The suitability of the general area for education use has been tested with planning application R15/0012 and found to be acceptable.

59 In OTH38 WCC have identified Coton Park East as the most suitable site in the North of Rugby to reserve for secondary education use. The greatest immediate pressure for secondary school places is in the North. The site does not currently have good sustainable transport links with the rest of Northern Rugby but these would be enhanced if WCC were to adopt and implement the draft Sustainable Transport Strategy for Rugby (Hearing Statement Matter 3b SW 2110, pages 50 to 71).

60 Currently insufficient land is allocated for secondary education in the Publication Draft to demonstrate that the requirements of NPPF paragraph 72 have been met. Modifying policy DS7 to include provision for secondary education and require that not only should “a comprehensive cycle network” “link residential areas with key-on-site facilities” but that also that the network should be extended to provide connections with the Rugby Gateway and the Rugby Town Centre should support the range of government policies cited in paragraph 11 above.

61 A question remains concerning viability. At the time of writing a revised viability assessment has not been provided for DS7. In July 2016 the Prime Minister announced that funds had been set aside for Rugby’s fourth new secondary school. Clearly the developers could expect a receipt for their land from this source and also a contribution towards necessary infrastructure works such as improvements to Leicester Road, estate roads and the comprehensive cycle network mentioned above. This suggests that the developer might expect a lower gross profit on the development but would not necessarily mean a significant reduction in the expected rate of return on investment. The Inspector has already mentioned one option which might be attractive to the developer namely a land swap for land the county council holds in SW Rugby. There is an alternative/additional feature which might render such a development viable. Due to the shortage of secondary school places in the North of Rugby any further housing development in Coton Park would be required to make a secondary school contribution. However if the secondary school were to be built before the housing development there is a possibility that the required secondary school contribution could fall away and thereby improve the potential return from the housing development.

Recommendation

62 That the Inspector recommend a major modification to policy DS7 to allow for the development of a secondary school in Coton Park East.

Chronology – Development of Warwickshire County Council Policy on Secondary School Provision in Rugby

Ref Date Description

WCC01 2007 WCC votes to close Bishop Wulstan Secondary School as there are too many secondary school places in Rugby. 2008 OOP02 2009 A new secondary school is needed by 2014. OOP03 2010 An 1800 place school at Rugby Radio Masts and Avon Valley extension. 2011 2012 2013 OOP04 May 2014 Section 106 agreement for Rugby Radio Masts signed WCC05 Nov 2014 WCC’s Cabinet adopts the 2014 School Sufficiency Strategy 2015 OOP06 Jan 2016 Bilton School should be expanded to cope with Ashlawn Fields OOP07 Feb 2016 Response to Preferred Options Draft of Local Plan WCC08 Mar 2016 WCC’s Cabinet decide to offer Rokeby Playing Fields as a site for two new schools WCC09 Apr 2016 WCC’s Cabinet adopts the 2015 School Sufficiency Strategy OOP10 June 2016 WCC Cabinet member for education responds to a question at the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee OOP11 Aug 2016 Information provided before consultation on Publication Draft of Local Plan 00P12 Nov 2016 WCC’s Head of Physical Assets submits planning statement for two new schools on Rokeby Playing Fields OOP13 Jan 2017 WCC’s Head of Physical Assets submits Educational Need statement OOP14 Feb 2017 Section 106 agreement for Ashlawn Fields OOP15 Mar 2017 WCC letter OOP16 Apr 2017 WCC’s Joint Managing Director comments on the ability to expand existing school places OOP17 May 2017 Cllr Kaur writes to the Chair of SHARE to explain WCC’s strategy WCC18 June 2017 WCC’s Cabinet adopts the 2016 School Sufficiency Strategy OOP19 Unknown but An officer drafts a 2017 School Sufficiency Strategy. probably Autumn 2017 OOP20 Jan 2018 Statement of Common Ground for Lodge Farm (OTH10) OOP21 Jan 2018 Statement of Common Ground for SW Rugby (OTH18) OOP22 Feb 2018 WCC Officer offers an explanation of WCC education policy to the Inspector OOP23 Mar 2018 WCC’s Statement on Secondary Education Needs and Infrastructure (OTH38)

This shows the key documents charting WCC’s policy for secondary education provision in Rugby since 2007 when it decided that Rugby was over-provided with secondary school places and closed Bishop Wulstan secondary school. Policy decisions are given a WCCNN reference and are shown in bold type. Officer observations on policy are given a OOPNN reference. OOP17 is classed with officer observations on policy because Cllr Kaur is a member of WCC’s cabinet and metadata associated with the document shows that an employee of the county council, in the education team, was involved in drafting it.

Plate 1

Richard Allanach 16 March 2018. Five minutes past eight in the morning and pupils from the Rugby Gateway, one of two “sustainable” urban extensions approved in the Core Strategy (2011), board a fossil fuel burning bus provided by Warwickshire’s School Transport Service for their daily nine mile journey to their designated primary school in Monks Kirby. Compare and contrast “key facilities such as primary schools … should be located within walking distance of most properties” [NPPF, paragraph 38].

References

1 Department for Education (2016) Making significant changes to an open academy (page 6)

2 Mills, S & McCart, C (2017) Education and Learning Sufficiency Strategy 2016-2021, included as item 3 in the WCC Cabinet papers for the meeting of 15 June 2017. Referenced as WCC18 in the chronology (paragraph 1.5, page 1)

3 Rugby Borough Council (2017) Local Plan Publication Draft Consultation Responses Summary April 2017

4 Supreme Court (2017) JUDGMENT: Suffolk Coastal District Council (Appellant) v Hopkins Homes Ltd and another (Respondents) Richborough Estates Partnership LLP and another (Respondents) v Cheshire East Borough Council (Appellant)

Appendix 1 – The mathematics of school choice

A simplified scenario is created and then the effect of perturbations are explored.

Simplified scenario

A planning authority is a shire district within a county council. The local education authority is the county council. This describes the relationship between Rugby Borough Council and Warwickshire County Council.

There are just two secondary schools (A and B) in the planning authority and the planning authority is divided into two school priority areas (area a containing school A and area b containing school b). There are twelve forms of entry in each school year.

Assumption 1 That the number of school places for each year of entry exactly matches the number of children in the planning authority.

Assumption 2 That the priority areas have been perfectly drawn such that each school has the same number of pupils living in its priority area.

Assumption 3 It is possible to make a sustainable journey from each dwelling in each priority area to its chosen secondary school.

Assumption 4 It is not possible to make a sustainable journey across school priority area boundaries.

Assumption 5 There are no “looked after” children.

Assumption 6 No child has a sibling.

Assumption 7 The school governors of each school have chosen to adopt the Warwickshire County Council over-subscription criteria.

Assumption 8 Each parent of each child chooses the school in their priority area.

In the starting scenario everyone gets the school of their choice and has a sustainable journey to school. A perfect outcome under the NPPF.

Perturbation 1

This concerns a variation to assumption 1. Let us assume that there are 20 more pupils than there are places.

Now assumption 7 comes into play. A school catchment area is now defined within each school priority area and the ten children who, despite living in the priority area, are most distant from each school cannot attend the school of their choice. As a result, not of their choice but of the school governors’ choice, they are now forced to make an unsustainable journey out of area to a school which the county council will allocate them elsewhere within the local education authority.

Perturbation 2

This concerns a variation to assumption 8. Let us assume that half of all parents continue to make the default choice of the school in their priority area but the other half, who shall be called active choosers, make a conscious choice between the two schools.

First let us assume that the conscious choices are randomly distributed between the two schools. In this perturbation all children still have the school of their choice but 5% of the children living in each priority area now have an unsustainable journey to the school in the ‘other’ priority area.

Secondly let us make the more realistic assumption that active school choices are not random but that there tends to be a general preference for one school over another. In this example let us assume that school A tends to be more popular with 80% of active choosers choosing school A and only 20% of active choosers choosing school B. The choices would be as shown in table 1 below:

Parents living in Parents living in priority area a priority area b Active choosers 72 72 choosing school A Active choosers 18 18 choosing school B Other parents 90 choosing school A Other parents 90 choosing school B TOTAL 180 180

Total choices for school A 234 Total choices for school B 126

Again assumption 7 comes into play. School A is over-subscribed and defines a catchment area which excludes the 54 most distant pupils who live in priority area b – who cannot enter the school of their choice but are instead forced to go to school B. Choice for these parents could only be a reality if 54 surplus places were created in the system in school A leaving 54 empty places in school B.

Perturbation 3

Consider a relaxation of assumption 7. In the above scenario what would be the case if the governors of school A had not adopted the standard Warwickshire oversubscription criteria but had instead decided to give a priority to children with red hair and furthermore red-headed children were not randomly distributed across the two school priority areas but two thirds of the children living in area b had red hair and only one third of children living in area a had red hair.

The first group of children to be admitted to school A would be the 54 children living in priority area a who had both chosen the school and who had red hair.

The second group of children to be admitted to school A would be the 48 children living in priority area b who had both chosen the school and who had red hair.

In order to select the remaining 78 children who could get into school A the governors would select a catchment area within the school priority area a. Thirty children who lived in priority area a and had chosen to school A (but who were not blessed with red hair) would now be forced to make an unsustainable journey to a school not of their choice. As in perturbation 2 the situation could only be alleviated by creating surplus places. Thirty surplus places would need to be created to eliminate forced unsustainable journeys and fifty four surplus places would need to be created to ensure every parent got the school of their choice.

The scenario described above would be illegal under UK law as it would amount to indirect racial discrimination. However the general effect is the same whenever school governing bodies depart from the Warwickshire County Council geographically based over-subscription criteria. In the Rugby area most schools have abandoned the Warwickshire over-subscription criteria and chosen over- subscription criteria of their own. For example one of the criteria in use at Harris School is to give precedence to children who are ‘at the heart of the Christian Church’. This is a perfectly rational choice for a school run by an Anglican diocese but in a situation of both limited supply and active choice by parents the presence of non-geographical over-subscription criteria is likely to lead to forced unsustainable journeys.

Appendix 2 – An analysis of Warwickshire County Council’s Secondary School Pupil Forecasts

Chart 3 is taken from six WCC sources as shown in the table below:

Table - data points underpining Chart 3

OTH 38 OOP19 WCC18 OOP17 WCC09 WCC05 2014-15 6242 2015-16 6308 2016-17 6760 6386 2017-18 5654 5654 5731 5731 7154 6496 2018-19 6095 6061 6052 6052 7617 6700 2019-20 6394 6302 6443 6443 7807 2020-21 6818 6609 6736 6736 8039 2021-22 7000 6740 6886 6886 2022-23 7271 7020 7065 2023-24 7573 7317 2024-25 7769 2025-26 8115 2026-27 8348 2027-28 8347 2028-29 8306 2029-30 8314 2030-31 8139 The column headings are taken from the Chronology and the sources are as detailed below.

OTH38 – table 2, page 3.

OOP19 – a report published for approval at WCC’s Cabinet meeting of 15 February 2018 but whose consideration was cancelled on the day of the meeting (page 81 of the document).

WCC18 – Warwickshire County Council’s policy for education provision (page 69 of the document’s appendix A).

OOP17 – Letter from Cllr Kaur to the Chair of SHARE – reproduced in appendix 3.

WCC09 – Warwickshire County Council’s 2016 policy for education provision (page 31 of the document’s appendix B).

WCC05 – Warwickshire County Council’s 2014 policy for education provision (pages 26 and 27 of that document).

The large step down in planned secondary school numbers between WCC05 and WCC09 when compared to the later forecasts is believed to be a change in WCC’s definition of secondary school pupil. The earlier forecasts are believed to relate to all pupils in secondary schools (years 7 to 13) whilst the later forecasts only relate to years 7 to 11.

The derivation of table 1 (below) is as described below. For the references see the chronology.

OOP07 takes the figures from page 1 of the document – the relevant extract is included in appendix 3 below. OOP11 also takes the figures from page 1 of the document – the relevant extract is also included in appendix 3 below. OOP17 comes from the first page of the letter (which is reproduced in its entirety in appendix 3 below. Cllr Kaur writes “the North Rugby planning area will come under increasing pressure as a result of the ongoing developments at the Gateway, Coton Park, Coton House and Leicester Road sites. Combined, these developments will yield circa 2,500 homes and an estimated 700 secondary age pupils. These figures are taken from the latest version of the Rugby Borough Council draft local plan and include Coton House and all other developments taking place in North Rugby”. OTH10 is in the Examination Library paragraph 3.2 on page 5 contains the prediction that the secondary school population will peak in 2041 at a level of 310 pupils and at that stage there are still 35 more houses to be built in Lodge Farm so the relevant divisor is (1,500 - 35 = 1,465). OTH18 is in the Examination Library and contains numbers for primary school pupils but surprisingly not for secondary school pupils ! However page 1 of OTH18 states that the 5,000 new houses will generate a requirement for a six form of entry secondary school and from paragraph 2.4 (page 2) of OTH38 we know that a form should be equated to 30 pupils. Therefore the requirement is for 180 pupils a year or 900 pupils for the five years (year 7 to year 11). Finally in OTH38 we have an increase of 2,485 pupils between 2017/18’s figure of 5,654 secondary school pupils and the final year prediction of 8,139 at the same time as LP01 appendix 2 shows that RBC is forecasting the completion of 10,460 dwellings. (This is the wrong forecast for WCC to have used, see section D above, however it is the forecast they say they have used).

Appendix 3 – Extracts from Key Documents

Rugby Borough Council – Local Plan Publication Draft Consultation Responses Summary April 2017

… followed by a long list of bullet points including on page 18

(page 14)

OOP03 – Letter from WCC to RBC providing information for the Core Strategy 3rd June 2010

Rugby Radio Station

Secondary

Our revised assessment is that there is will be a need for 1567 secondary school places (11-16) and 276 post 16 places. Although this would indicate a basic requirement for an 1800 places secondary school, in order to manage some of the uncertainties alluded to earlier in this letter, it is requested that site be able to accommodate up to 2000 secondary pupils giving a site required of 12.5 hectares. …

The Gateway Development

…

Secondary

Our revised assessment is that there is will be a need for 329 secondary school places (11-16) and 58 post 16 places giving a total need for 387 places. It is intended that the additional secondary school provision would be made by extending Avon Valley School.

WCC05 – An earlier policy for the provision of education – the 2014 School Sufficiency Strategy approved by WCC’s Cabinet in November 2014

(Page 26)

(Page 27)

[The promised review of secondary education across Rugby in early 2015 did not take place.]

OOP07 – WCC submission to RBC in February 2016

Education Response – School Access & Organisation, Warwickshire County Council

Delivery of committed sites together with the proposed allocations (as part of The Preferred Option) within the plan period could create the need to provide over approximately 4,000 primary school places and 3,500 secondary and sixth form places

The Preferred Option (Total Site Allocation) – Approximate Pupil Yield Reception to Year 13 Site Dwellings Primary Yield Secondary 6th Form Yield Yield Coton House 150 52 37 7 Coton Park East 855 297 212 37 South West Rugby 5400 1874 1338 236 Main Rural Settlements 700 243 173 31 Coventry Urban Edge: 1500 520 372 65 Walsgrave Hill Farm Total 8605 2986 2132 376

(page 1)

(Page 2)

WCC09 – An earlier policy for the provision of education – the 2015 School Sufficiency Strategy approved by WCC’s Cabinet in April 2016

(Page 31 of appendix B)

OOP10 – Minutes of WCC’s Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The Cabinet member responsible for education, Cllr Hayfield, responds to a question from the Chair of SHARE

(Page 3)

OOP11 – WCC evidence submitted to RBC regarding the developing Local Plan

(Page 1)

(Page 2)

OOP16 – WCC’s Joint Managing Director writes to a local MP

OOP17 – Letter from Cllr Kaur to the Chair of SHARE

Tuesday 9 May 2017

Dear Sally Chant,

RE: Rugby Secondary Schools

I am writing in response to your recent query regarding Rugby Secondary Schools and the need for an additional school ideally placed in the North of the Town.

Currently the only school in the North Rugby planning area is The Avon Valley School, in all class years this school is either close to, or above its Published Admission Number (PAN).

The table below (figure1) shows current numbers on roll, correct as of 4th April 2017.

Figure1:

PAN Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 The Avon Valley 220 219 220 220 213 221 School

The Avon Valley School was asked to offer 235 pupil places for the September 2016 allocation day. However, given that newly opened free schools, (such as the Rugby Free Secondary School) are not required to be part of the coordinated scheme, for this allocation only; parents were offered and were able to hold two places until the start of term.

This meant that while there were sufficient places across the town for the initial allocation, The Avon Valley School, Harris C of E Academy and Bilton School all had higher allocations than the current Year 7 cohort. Therefore, despite the Avon Valley School being asked to take up to 235 Year 7 pupils, due to pupils holding two place offers, it was predicted that this number would drop once the term had begun. The Avon Valley School expressed concerns at that time about accommodating these additional children.

All but 10 students currently attending The Avon Valley School are from within Warwickshire County borders. This profile is expected to continue so there is no capacity within the school to accommodate more Warwickshire children in future cohorts as there can be no push back of pupils across the border. Despite the overall capacity being maintained, due to the constraints of the current school site, the North Rugby planning area will come under increasing pressure as a result of the ongoing developments at the Gateway, Coton Park, Coton House and Leicester Road sites. Combined, these developments will yield circa 2,500 homes and an estimated 700 secondary age pupils. These figures are taken from the latest version of the Rugby Borough Council draft local plan and include Coton House and all other developments taking place in North Rugby.

The table below (figure2) shows the current forecast pupil numbers in the North Rugby planning area:

Figure 2:

Capacity Forecast pupil numbers

Sep-17 1100 1186 Sep-18 1100 1240 Sep-19 1100 1284 Sep-20 1100 1310 Sep-21 1100 1347 Sep-22 1100 1390

The Avon Valley School does not currently have a 6th form. With the raising of the ‘Participation Age’ this means that students in the North of Rugby wishing to attend 6th form must travel to the South of the Town.

The Avon Valley School is currently in the process of converting to an academy and as such Warwickshire County Council has no authority to force the school to expand its provision. This situation is similar to other schools in Rugby which are either Grammar Schools or part of an Academy Trust. Furthermore, the current school site is unviable for any meaningful expansion to the level that would be required to meet the forecast need. Indeed, even if all the current schools in Rugby were expanded this would still not meet the demand for school places.

Consequently, a new school is required in Rugby, with the preferred location in the North. This is in addition to the continued increase in capacity provided by Rugby Free Secondary School as it grows organically from the bottom up.

This pressure on the North of the Town impacts the South significantly. Of the current 4254 pupils on role at the schools in the South Rugby planning area, 669 come from The Avon Valley Schools priority area. However it must be emphasised that opening a new school in the North alone, will not wholly alleviate these challenges, or the southward movement. The Grammar school element of Rugby means that pupils from the North will always travel to the South to attend those schools.

The opening of Rugby Free Secondary School in September 2016 has mitigated a degree of the pressure on the South of the Town. However with the ongoing housing demands in the South of the town along the proposed Ashlawn Road development (an application for 860 homes, currently at appeal) there will be further pressure.

Whilst the outcome of this appeal is awaited, Warwickshire County Council must include the site as developed in its forecasts. Furthermore the site is still considered part of the local plan as an element of the wider South West Rugby expansion and as such must be included in the figures.

The table below (figure3) shows the current forecast pupil numbers in the South Rugby planning area, including the phased opening of Rugby Free Secondary School.

Figure 3:

Capacity Forecast pupil numbers Sep-17 4,800 4545 Sep-18 4,980 4812 Sep-19 5,160 5159 Sep-20 5340 5426 Sep-21 5340 5539 Sep-22 5340 5675

These forecasts demonstrate that the area will again be over capacity in September 2020. The phased opening of the Rugby Free Secondary School has brought a degree of breathing space, and further schools are required to address the expectant demand. This data for Rugby as a whole shows that both the South and the North of Rugby are expected to come under heavy pressure as a result of primary cohorts moving through school along with volume of housing growth.

The table below (figure 4) shows the current forecast pupil numbers across Rugby as a whole, including the phased opening of Rugby Free Secondary School.

Figure 4:

Capacity Forecast pupil numbers Sep-17 5900 5731 Sep-18 6080 6052 Sep-19 6260 6443 Sep-20 6440 6736 Sep-21 6440 6886 Sep-22 6440 7065

The table below (figure 5) shows the current forecast pupil numbers across Rugby as a whole if permission for Rugby Free Secondary School was refused and therefore could not take any further pupils beyond September 2017. Decreasing capacity shows the two year cohort at Rugby Free Secondary School moving through the school then leaving.

Figure 5:

Capacity Forecast pupil numbers Sep-17 5900 5731 Sep-18 5900 6052 Sep-19 5900 6443 Sep-20 5900 6736 Sep-21 5720 6886 Sep-22 5540 7065

Sep-18 4,980 4812 Sep-19 5,160 5159 Sep-20 5340 5426 Sep-21 5340 5539 Sep-22 5340 5675

38 the South and the North of Rugby are expected to come under heavy pressure as a result of primary cohorts moving through school along with volume of housing growth.

The table below (figure 4) shows the current forecast pupil numbers across Rugby as a whole, including the phased opening of Rugby Free Secondary School.

Figure 4:

Capacity Forecast pupil numbers Sep-17 5900 5731 Sep-18 6080 6052 Sep-19 6260 6443 Sep-20 6440 6736 Sep-21 6440 6886 Sep-22 6440 7065

Figure 5:

Capacity Forecast pupil numbers Sep-17 5900 5731 Sep-18 5900 6052 Sep-19 5900 6443 Sep-20 5900 6736 Sep-21 5720 6886 Sep-22 5540 7065

Therefore the opening of a new school in the North of Rugby in continuation with the phased opening of the Rugby Free Secondary School would allow the pupils from the Avon Valley priority area to move back into the North of the Town. Even if only half of the students move back to the North from Southern schools this would bring the South of the Town under overall capacity, (as long as the Rugby Free Secondary School remains open). It also allows for the 4% surplus capacity WCC has identified to allow for flexibility to meet parental preference as much as possible, enable in-year transfers and allow families moving to an area to be able to secure a place at a local school or for each of their children at the same school.

The table below (figure 6) shows the current forecast pupil numbers across the whole of Rugby detailing capacity figures surrounding the various options open to WCC to address this Secondary need in Rugby.

Figure 6:

Options 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Option 1 5900 5900 5900 5900 5720 5540 Option 2 5900 5900 6170 6440 6710 6980 Option 3 5900 5900 5940 6160 6380 6600

Option 4 5900 6080 6260 6440 6440 6440 Option 5 5900 6080 6530 6800 7070 7340 Option 6 5900 6080 6480 6700 6920 7140 Option 7 5900 6080 6260 6440 6440 6440 Forecast pupil 5730 6052 6443 6737 6886 7065 numbers

Figure 6 details the various options open to Warwickshire County Council over the coming years and how this will impact upon available pupil places in Rugby secondary schools. The green cells show where capacity will be greater than the predicted forecasts for that year; and red cells where there will be a deficit of places.

• Option 1 - If Rugby Free School were to close and be prevented from taking pupils beyond September 2017. • Option 2 - RFSS shutting post September 2017, a new school in the North in September 2019 at 270 pupils, which would make it the 3rd largest school in Warwickshire, would require a very large site which so far has not been found.1 • Option 3 - RFSS shutting post September 2017 plus a new northern school the same size as Avon Valley at 220. • Option 4 - Capacity with RFSS continued phased opening. • Option 5 - RFSS phased opening plus opening a new school in the North at 270 pupils - which would make it the 3rd largest school in Warwickshire, would face same situations as Option 2 in terms of finding a site. • Option 6 - RFSS phased opening plus a new northern school the same size as Avon Valley at 220. • Option 7 - RFSS moved to alternative Site but phased opening continues.

Therefore, it can be seen that option 5 or option 6 are the only options which would create enough spaces suitable for placing children within Secondary Schools. Option 5 is the most viable option as this provides sufficient places across the whole of the next 5 years.

This data reflects the scale of the problem in the Rugby area and why the expansion of all existing schools cannot be considered as a solution to this problem. All non-selective schools would have to expand by at least 2 forms of entry to alleviate the pressure. Due to the selective nature of the grammar schools, expansion at those schools would not guarantee additional capacity for Rugby children.

The complexities of this expansion are made all the more difficult as all the schools are Academies and, as mentioned in relation to The Avon Valley School, Warwickshire County Council has no authority to force an academy school to expand. It was suggested that Ashlawn was asked to expand on the existing site by increasing their PAN, as they already take near to two forms of entry over their published PAN from upheld appeals. They refused. Furthermore as an Academy they have the right to alter their admissions criteria, which they did as of September 2016, which exacerbated the problem further, as this enabled more pupils from outside of the Rugby area to gain a place at Ashlawn School.

The possibility of expanding the current secondary schools is compounded by the urban nature of the existing schools, as largely they do not have the room to expand without compromising on other aspects of the school site. With regard to the email from Janet Neale, she does not state the school could or should expand. The email states that the Bilton School could accommodate some children as it currently has space in its upper cohorts. To infer from this that the school is being considered for

1 This date is given as the earliest possible date that WCC and the EFA could go through due process to open a new secondary school.

40 expansion is incorrect. The only available option therefore is for additional schools in Rugby to accommodate increasing need.

The two secondary schools identified in the local plan for Houlton development and the Rugby South West expansion cannot be considered as part of this solution for the existing need in Rugby as both schools will be sized accordingly to be self-serving, in that they will only be able to accommodate pupils from their respective developments. To request one of the schools be brought forward to take children not from the priority area is an unsustainable model. To do so would compromise children from Houlton securing places within the school once a sufficient number of homes have been built.

Furthermore placing an additional secondary school on either of these sites would require increased contributions from developers who are highly to fund extra school provision beyond what in expected as a result of their development and has already been agreed. Negotiations for an additional secondary site on either the Houlton or South West Rugby developments have little chance of success as the Developer is under no obligation to provide any additional land or financial contributions, beyond that needed to mitigate the impact of their development.

However as both sites are designed to be self-sustaining, forecasts have been created for solely the existing urban Rugby area (Rugby plus all permitted development and local plan but not including Houlton or South West Rugby) to highlight the pressure that Rugby town will be facing through basic need even though, as was emphasised earlier with the phasing of these sites, there will initially be some transfer of secondary pupils from these sites into the existing schools in Rugby. The table below (figure7) shows the current forecast pupil numbers across Rugby detailing forecasts and capacity figures surrounding the various options open to address Secondary need the existing urban Rugby area (Rugby plus all permitted development and local plan but not including Houlton or South West Rugby):

Figure 7:

Various Options 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Option 1 5900 5900 5900 5900 5720 5540 Option 2 5900 5900 6170 6440 6710 6980 Option 3 5900 5900 5940 6160 6380 6600 Option 4 5900 6080 6260 6440 6440 6440 Option 5 5900 6080 6530 6800 7070 7340 Option 6 5900 6080 6480 6700 6920 7140 Option 7 5900 6080 6260 6440 6440 6440 Forecasts 5725 6035 6398 6645 6747 6879

• Option 1 - If Rugby Free School were to shut and be prevented from taking pupils beyond September 2017. • Option 2 - RFSS shutting post September 2017, a new school in the North in September 2019 at 270 pupils - which would make it the 3rd largest school in Warwickshire, would require a very large site which so far has not been found.

• Option 3 - RFSS shutting post September 2017 + the new northern school would be same size as Avon Valley at 220. • Option 4 - Capacity with RFSS continued phased opening. • Option 5 - RFSS phased opening plus opening a new school in the North at 270 pupils - which would make it the 3rd largest school in Warwickshire, would face same situations as Option 2 in terms of finding a site. • Option 6 - RFSS phased opening + the new northern school the same size as Avon Valley at 220. • Option 7 - RFSS moved to alternative Site but phased opening continues.

These forecasts show both these pressures as severely impacting upon the number of available places and creating a deficiency of spaces within Rugby secondary schools.

The pressure within Rugby can be broken down further into a discussion of current primary age cohorts. With larger cohorts attending primary schools in the south central area of Rugby town, the location of the proposed permanent site for Rugby Free Secondary School is well placed to serve the existing and forecast secondary need in Rugby. In raw terms the PAN for Year 7 Entry of all Secondary schools in Rugby (including RFSS) is 1288; the current cohort in the Year 1 is 1342. This pressure from primary cohorts is particularly relevant in the South Central planning area of the town where the current Year 3 cohort is over 50 pupils larger than the current year 6; the cohorts younger than the current Year 3 are similarly large. After several years of cohort growth, as these years move through Primary, as a result of housing and general in year migration this cohort alone will place significant pressure onto the Secondary schools in the South of the town. Both Rokeby Primary and Oakfield Academy are part of this wider trend and have larger year 3 cohorts than the current year 6 and this will also add to the pressure being faced in the south of Rugby Town. This is an important distinction to make as with pressure in the North of the Town, there will be increased pressure in the South, not due to housing or to increased migration from the North but solely from primary cohorts moving through into Secondary.

This is therefore why Warwickshire County Council is working towards four new schools in Rugby (including Rugby Free Secondary School), as there is a genuine need for all four schools due to the pressure that primary cohorts moving through will place upon Secondary schools. This places particular pressure on the south of the town, compounded by the ongoing housing developments in the South and North of Rugby as well as Houlton and the South West expansion.

I believe we have given you the fullest picture possible in this letter. I hope I have shown that the pressure on secondary school places is evident beyond the level resulting from new housing, and therefore the strategy being pursued by this council is appropriate to address that pressure.

If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours Sincerely,

Cllr Kam Kaur

[The invitation to contact Cllr Kaur with further questions was taken up by the Chair of SHARE but produced no response.]

WCC018 – The County Council’s current education provision policy

(Page 1)

(Page 39 of appendix A)

(Page 69 of appendix A)

OOP19 - Officers’ draft of a proposed policy for Warwickshire the 2017 School Sufficiency Document

(Page 42 of appendix A)

(Page 43 of appendix A)

(This table is taken from page 81).

Appendix 4 – Housing Developments and School Priority Areas

Committed and windfall developments from RBC's LP54

Development Plan Area Priority Area 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 Total

Technology Drive North Avon Valley 49 49 49 3 150 Coton House North Avon Valley 23 23 Ridgeway Farm South Ashlawn 50 50 Williams Field South Bilton 36 34 70 Homefields South Ashlawn 22 22 Rugby Radio Station North Avon Valley 166 228 239 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 3,033 Back Lane Long Lawford South Bilton 45 30 75 Ballast Pits South Ashlawn 46 46 Newbold Farm North Avon Valley 4 4 Cawston Lane - Bellway South Bilton 41 62 27 130 Cawston Lane - Ashberry South Bilton 35 41 76 Cawston William Davis South Bilton 58 86 27 171 Cawston Linden Homes South Bilton 52 52 52 52 18 226 Hillmorton Road South Ashlawn 5 5 Webb Ellis Industrial North Avon Valley 59 59 Wood Street North Avon Valley 6 6 Eden Park North Avon Valley 30 75 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 2 907 Market Place South Ashlawn 10 10 Gateway Phase 4 North Avon Valley 40 40 32 112 Dipbar Fields South Ashlawn 26 30 30 86 Princes Street North Avon Valley 6 6 Railway Terrace North Avon Valley 14 14 Temple Street South Ashlawn 7 7 Clifton Road North Avon Valley 6 6 Imperial Hotel North Avon Valley 14 14 Brinklow North Avon Valley 7 7 Church Street North Avon Valley 5 5 Claremont Road North Avon Valley 6 6 Newton Lane North Avon Valley 20 20 40 Lower Hillmorton Road South Ashlawn 6 6 Colehurst Farm North Avon Valley 8 8 Parkfield Road North Avon Valley 15 15 Regent Street North Avon Valley 12 12 South of Coventry Road South Bilton 30 60 60 150 Lower Hillmorton Road South Ashlawn 17 17 Wharf Farm North Avon Valley 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 30 0 0 380

Windfalls 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 585

TOTAL APPROVED 889 924 681 550 423 405 405 405 405 405 395 365 287 6,539

Total by Avon Valley 420 512 440 363 360 360 360 360 360 360 350 320 242 4,807 Secondary School Ashlawn 157 32 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 249 Priority Area Bilton 267 335 166 112 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 898 Windfalls 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 585

In draft Local Plan - not yet approved

Development Plan Area Priority Area 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 Totals

Coton Park East North Avon Valley 30 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 20 800 Coton House North Avon Valley 25 40 35 100 South West Rugby South Ashlawn 50 80 210 280 310 410 455 440 390 325 285 170 160 3,565 Lodge Farm South Ashlawn 25 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 665 Wolvey Nicholas Chamberlaine 50 50 100 Stretton South Bilton 30 45 75 Ryton South Bilton 25 50 75 Brinklow North Avon Valley 50 50 100 Binley Woods South Bilton 30 32 62 Wolston South Bilton 15 15 Long Lawford South Bilton 40 60 100

TOTAL NOT YET APPROVED 50 80 505 657 470 590 635 620 570 505 465 270 240 5,657

Total by Avon Valley 0 0 105 140 135 100 100 100 100 100 100 20 0 1,000 Secondary School Ashlawn 50 80 210 280 335 490 535 520 470 405 365 250 240 4,230 Priority area Bilton 0 0 140 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 327 Windfalls 0 Nicholas Chamberlaine 0 0 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

GRAND TOTAL - APPROVED AND UNAPPROVED 939 1,004 1,186 1,207 893 995 1,040 1,025 975 910 860 635 527 12,196

Total by Avon Valley 420 512 545 503 495 460 460 460 460 460 450 340 242 5,807 Secondary School Ashlawn 207 112 240 310 335 490 535 520 470 405 365 250 240 4,479 Priority Area Bilton 267 335 306 299 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,225 Windfalls 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 585 Nicholas Chamberlaine 0 0 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

This analysis takes the figures directly from LP54. For consistency no adjustment has been made for errors in LP54.

Legend

1,980 Dwellings completed in the North of Rugby before the planned opening of the Rugby Radio Masts School.

2,533 Dwellings completed in the South of Rugby between the South running out of capacity and the planned opening of the SW Rugby School.

Appendix 5 – Cycle routes in Rugby

This map is taken from the Rugby Borough Council website. It probably gives an over generous impression of the available safe routes to school. The cycle route running alongside the Western Relief Road, the cycle route passing over the A426 and the cycle route running in Ashlawn Cuttings all make use of dis- used railway lines, are unlit, pass out of the sight of houses and have poor surfaces. They are excellent family “leisure” routes but I would not have wanted my children and I would not want my grand-daughter to use them as a route to school (except as part of a large ‘trustworthy’ group of school friends). The cycle routes shown running between the A426 and Barby Road and along the Sow Brook North are in an intermediate category of not being well exposed to the sight of houses. If all these routes are removed from consideration then what is left is a very patchy set of “safe routes”.

Appendix 6 – The numbers behind chart 4

Derivation of Chart 4

Year WCC Need Difference Extra Cumulative Revised Need plus Capacity Capacity GAP in Housing Pupils Extra Need 4% policy at Max one year Trajectory Pupils buffer at a time

2017-18 5,654 5,654 5,880 5,770 5,770 110 2018-19 6,095 79 15 15 6,110 6,354 5,950 5,950 404 2019-20 6,394 33 6 21 6,415 6,672 6,130 6,130 542 2020-21 6,818 -128 -25 -3 6,815 7,087 6,310 6,310 777 2021-22 7,000 85 16 13 7,013 7,294 6,310 6,310 984 2022-23 7,271 41 8 21 7,292 7,584 7,210 6,490 1,094 2023-24 7,573 232 45 66 7,639 7,944 7,210 6,670 1,274 2024-25 7,769 277 53 119 7,888 8,204 7,210 6,850 1,354 2025-26 8,115 262 51 170 8,285 8,616 8,110 7,210 1,406 2026-27 8,348 212 41 210 8,558 8,901 8,110 7,570 1,331 2027-28 8,347 267 51 262 8,609 8,953 8,110 7,750 1,203 2028-29 8,306 267 51 313 8,619 8,964 8,110 7,930 1,034 2029-30 8,314 92 18 331 8,645 8,991 8,110 8,110 881 2030-31 8,139 17 3 334 8,473 8,812 8,110 8,110 702

RBC are projecting more new dwellings in LP 54 than they did in LP01 – appendix 2. The difference in dwelling completions is converted into a difference in pupils using WCC’s stated approach. The additional pupils are added to WCC’s need to produce a revised need. Then the policy buffer of 4% is added. The capacity at max comes from page 3 of OTH38. An alternative calculation is then undertaken assuming new schools only come on stream one year group at a time (which is the approach WCC took with Rugby Free Secondary School). The GAP is the difference between the revised need with the 4% buffer and the capacity (one year at a time).